Series

Indexing — the series

4 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. 7 cells explain the lines; one of them is right. A line list from a face-centred cubic cell of 5.64 Å, with a realistic error added, handed to a sweep over every cubic cell between 2 and 12 Å in all three centrings. 7 distinct cells explain every line within the tolerance, and each is a genuine solution rather than a numerical accident. The true cell comes top by de Wolff's figure of merit — the last Q over twice the mean discrepancy times the number of lines the candidate says should have been visible — which punishes a candidate for predicting lines nobody saw. That is the whole of what makes indexing decidable in practice: not the arithmetic, which has many answers, but a criterion for preferring one.

    Indexing a powder pattern

    A powder pattern is a list of numbers and a cell is six. Getting the second from the first is the first step of every powder study and the one that fails — because the arithmetic has many answers, and choosing between them is a ranking rather than a deduction.

    part 1 · applied
  2. 342 unlabelled spots, cell volume 52. A bag of 342 reflection positions with no indices on them, collected out to a bound of 3 on each index. Their pairwise differences generate the reciprocal lattice; a basis of that is taken by integer elimination and then reduced, and the reduced basis is printed. Its determinant is 52, which is the volume of the cell the reflections were computed from — so the cell has been recovered from positions alone, with no intensity used anywhere.

    A cell from a bag of spots

    A single-crystal experiment returns a list of directions with no labels on them. Recovering the cell is recovering the lattice those directions generate, and the whole of it is take differences, reduce, read the answer. What no quantity of data settles is whether the lattice found is the true one or a sublattice of it.

    part 2 · applied
  3. The figure of merit a supercell always beats. One line list, indexed on the true cell and on five multiples of it. The mean discrepancy is not merely similar down the column, it is identical to every digit: the supercell's grid of allowed Q values contains the true cell's grid exactly, so each line lands on precisely the same place and misses by precisely the same amount. Any figure of merit built on agreement alone therefore returns one number for the whole family, and cannot prefer the true cell. What falls is the last column, and the only thing in it that the fit does not already contain is the count of lines the cell says should have been seen.

    The figure of merit a supercell always beats

    Indexing a powder pattern returns a ranked list rather than an answer, and the ranking needs a number. The obvious number — how well the cell accounts for the lines — is exactly the number a supercell cannot lose on, because the supercell's grid contains the true cell's grid and the discrepancies are identical to every digit. What has to be paid for is the lines nobody saw.

    part 3 · applied
  4. The alias accounts for every line and predicts more. The observed lines above, and below them the grid of a supercell that explains all of them. The full ticks are the observed lines, which the alias reproduces exactly; the faint ones are lines the alias predicts and nobody saw. That second set is the only thing that separates the two cells, and it is why an indexing criterion has to charge for unobserved lines rather than measure agreement.

    Every alias is a supercell

    A cell that explains every line of a powder pattern is not a near miss and not a coincidence: its reciprocal grid contains the true one, which means its own cell is a superlattice of the true cell. So the ambiguity of indexing is the arithmetic of superlattices, and it can be counted — two cells with one unknown, sixteen with two, sixty-two with three, all of them accounting for the same twenty lines exactly.

    part 4 · applied

All series